Animal protein-rich diets COULD be as harmful to health as smoking

I see the bigger problem as being to many opinions and not one solid fact. The only solid fact is that people do indeed get cancer... is it from smoking? Yeah maybe, is it from animal proteins? Yeah, maybe. Perhaps it's because you lived down the road from a power plant, or near high voltage electric wires. There is ALL kinds of factors and no doctor no matter what will ever be able to nail down the exact cause of your particular cancer. So you say you smoked for 20 years? Yep, that's why you have it. That may not be the case at all though.

The entire medical industry is a complete and total joke. What's the first thing you do at a Dr's office when you walk in? You sign in right? Look at that pen you're using... who's name is on it? No doubt some new drug out. Look at the pads they have there... what name is on that? My Wife works for a kidney center and their drug reps pay for everyone's lunch at the office 2 or 3 times a month... why?

In John R. defense I have to say people are bombarding the guy based on his knowledge of his particular field... but everyone here does understand that indeed most curing of diseases is merely a shot in the dark right? Especially cancer, and while most hospitals or cancer treatment centers throw you right into chemotherapy, a good friend of my Mother had cancer and went to one treatment center (couldn't tell you which one) and they brought her a cocktail of all types of dark green veggies every morning. Kale and whatever else they put in it. Of course dark veggies like that as well as darker fruits are high in antioxidants, which some will claim help a lot with cancer... other's will simply dismiss it as merely witch doctoring.

The worst part about it is that we are given things to mask our issues... not cure them in many cases. How many people suffer from back pain and are just given a prescript for an opiate and then just sent on their merry way? Meanwhile when the people decide to get away from it to pursue another route they have to come off of these drugs that make them sick to the point of throwing up, defecating themselves, shaking, mood swing, intense and sometimes dangerous bouts of anger, suicidal thoughts, etc etc etc. Yep, sounds like a good solution to me.

I realize I'm on a rant here and getting off topic, but I see the biggest issues being that each doctor wants to be God or the hero and say "I did this" instead of actually working with others for a real solution. There is a thing such as educated beyond ones intelligence which is a disease that many in the medical industry seem to suffer from.

 

This is exactly what is brought up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma

skepticism is good as long as its contstructive

 

this is why scientists use percentages, risk factors, and data. yes, we know that smoking does indeed cause cancer. and we know this because we can compare lung cancer rates to different populations in certain ways.

sure, it's possible i suppose that a daily 20-year smoker may have gotten lung cancer from something other than cigarettes. but the likelihood is that it came from the cigarettes.

 

I just get tired of Drs or anyone saying what they feel is a fact... nothing is really black and white very often and especially in the medical field.

 

i still don't get what you're saying sib. it is a fact that smoking increases cancer rates for the population that smokes. it actually is a fact.

 

It may increase cancer rates, but is that the direct cause? If it is, where is the proof of that direct cause being smoking?

Do you see what I mean?

 

even if they havent found a direct mechanism theyve fond that benzene and other substances in cigerettes are also linked to cancer:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/intheworkplace/benzene

An increase in rates this drastic links smoking to cancer pretty well considering the rest of the population is the control:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/smoking-and-cancer

 

you're being overly pedantic and awfully obstinate. was i inside my grandpa's lungs when the first cancer cell was created? no. but he smoked two packs of unfiltered turkish cigarettes a day for 50 years. not really a stretch to point to the smokes when he got lung cancer and died.

 

wait, found a proposed benzene leukemia mechanism:
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/119.full.pdf

 

So he smoked 2 packs a day for 50 years... and it took that long for cancer to catch up to him? Or he had cancer during his smoking period when they found it? I would say for being a 50 year smoker he was actually more lucky than most people who never smoked at all and wind up with it. Wouldn't you?

 

statistical outliers exist...

statistically he was more likely to get it but doesnt mean he would (depends on his cellular repair systems and luck of the draw of cellular damage when smoking)

 

And those sorts of outliers are exactly the people smokers bring up to say they won't get ill. They make them feel better.
My step dad always pointed at my (step) grandad in that way.
Smoked his entire life. Died when he was 90 odd. Yadd yadda.

Sadly my actual dad died of lung cancer in his 50's (smoked since teen years) and my step dad died in his 60's from heart disease (smoked since teen years too).

There's no doubt smoking increases risk of cancer.

 

The point I am making... or attempting to make at least is not that I am doubting that it increases the risk of cancer, but is it the original cause of it? What other factors should be taken into account? Obesity can cause heart disease as well correct? So some may have smoked, but could have been obese which led to their heart disease... or maybe a combo of both right? What I am getting at is that the finger cannot be pointed at the disease itself, but at the doctors or those who study these things and then just assume that because a percentage of people who smoke happen to get lung cancer more often... but non smokers get it too, so the finger cannot always be pointed at smoking since people who have never smoked a day in their life get lung cancer, even if it is at a lower rate, so what caused those people to get it?

Of course I am sorry for your losses, I am simply saying as a whole that can the medical community actually be trusted anymore with so much big money coming from drug companies and other sources who really don't want people to get better, because if they do get better ultimately the medical industry loses BIG money.

 

Striding out to cross a road without looking is dangerous and vastly increases your chance of being hit by a car. Looking both ways before crossing the road reduces your chances of being hit by a car, but does not mean you WON'T get hit

the link between smoking and cancer/heart disease is so evidenced it should not even be up for discussion

 

Again, I never said that smoking did not contribute to cancer... my point is that the initial cause of the disease in each person is unknown. Smoking alone may not have had one single thing to do with it.

And yes, looking both ways may help, but take it from me... I looked both ways and was still hit by a car when I was a kid, so I know what happens.

 

come on son, enough with the pedantry.

 

Genetics give an underlying risk factor to cancering of cells such as ability to repair DNA damage and telomere length.

Cancers are caused by a build up of DNA damage.

DNA damage is caused by lifestyle (diet, activity, exposure to carcinogens and other substances) or even just simple cell division (making new cells).

If DNA damage happens in an area of the DNA that is vital to a certain process, that process can be affected. Sometimes the damage is too much and the cell dies, other times the cell carries on with altered functions and then in the case of cancering the DNA damage triggers unregulated growth patterns and uses up resources.

Thats why cancers like prostate are so common, because cells undergo division more frequents in these areas.

Being old usually means you have a number of accumulated DNA muckups over your lifetime so anyone can develop cancer if you have the underlying risk for it.

Lung cancer occurs in many because theres a lot of crap in the air and the lungs receive exposure to everything, even oxygen which i mentioned before can also cause cancer, but the genetic factor of how well you can repair it handles that.

thats how non smokers get it - they have an underlying genetic (inefficient repair system) and luck of the draw that they had DNA damage in a part of the DNA that causes cancering.

Smoking may have played a large PASmiths dad's cancer - he may have had many DNA damaged areas (with every cigarette damage was caused) that were repaired, but maybe over time/or random statistic chance the repair machinery's DNA was damaged (By a cigarette maybe 40 years later) and it could not repair areas properly so every cigarette after that caused further damage, maybe damaging a growth system leading to and suddenly aggressive cancer type.

Comparatively PASmith's step-granddad may have had a very efficient undamaged DNA repair system that gave him a lower genetic cancer risk.

Sure enough other lifestyle factors play a part and so do genetics.
It's a Genetic-Environment interaction that causes a screw up in cell systems leading to cancering.

 

So taking that experience would you recommend not looking both ways because you got hit anyway?

 

Until the time that we have completely mapped out systems biology (all the -omics fields) in conjunction with testing environmental effects (which i dont think will happen in my lifetime) there is little we can do to pinpoint the exact cause of individual cancering.

because it might be a combination of that one time you ate an expired twinky 20 years ago and a cold you have right now both causing minor but significant DNA damage.

What doctors have figured out are certain things cause much greater DNA damage than others such as smoking.

So there is an element of prevention involved in telling people to smoke smoking but cancering will happen normal humans (without medical intervention) because of competing mortality rates no matter what.

So doctors are instead working on treatment. and that treatment is becoming more stratified and personalised to each individual and their specific cancer type. it might mean that the pharma industry makes more money but thats the problem of you capitalist fools.

 

Does all smoking cause cancer?
Or just ciggies?